People: you know where I stand. I am not a lefty. Europe is more important to me than the left. I am French. I know a few things about energy and Russia. I am part of the technocratic elite. I am not a diplomat. I have done all I could on the site to welcome different view points and make them visible, while still being critical of them. If what I write here deserves such scorn, I'm really sorry.

More than condescending is more like it. Especially on a subject that he can claim no more privileged knowledge than anyone else. Oh, but I forgot, he's one of the "technocratic elite", so that makes it OK.

Or rather, left on somethings, center on many, atheist, pantheist, occasional user of mother nature's finest, but most of all totally unwilling to belong to any group that would claim to speak in my name. Which ET does not. It's a place with many voices.

Talking of that part of Europe, I'll be hopping around there in July. Poland first (Lodz), then Slovakia (Bratislava), then Hungary (that lake whose name I've forgotten), then Croatia (Zagreb), then Bosnia (Zenitsa). In a camping car with my "millionnaire" friend. And his dog. Woufen!

I didn't know that you're not a lefty. I bet a lot of others didn't either.

Jérôme's self-characterisation is something like 'liberal in the USA and libéral in France/Europe', so thisshould be well-known.

I also don't think your reactions' tone is well-chosen. (Personally, as the other one quoted, I cxhose not to reply.) We could at least appreciate that unlike on 95% of other blogs, he doesn't tell those disagreeing to go to hell.

I also note that however biased Jérôme may be or may be seen on Russia, now we have blackhawk, poemless and slaboymni himself as presenters of alternative views. I appreciate in particular blackhawk's Breakfast news contributions and his being forthcoming about digging up Russia-related or in-Russian info on request, and his willingness to stick around.

I've been arguing for that since these kind of spats began and I much appreciate the fruits that's growing from that development. Within a few months, there has been a noticeable influx of news and insights about Russia from Russian sources on this forum.

I can even agree when people are so tired about the bad myth-making on Russia that they resort to apathy instead of giving an alternative voice. But if you choose apathy, don't come to me bitching about that other people are knuckle-heads for believing all the rubbish in the newspapers. That doesn't add up.

Why is it disturbing to find that he is not a leftie? Are you simply disturbed by people who disagree with you?

(Jerome, did you leave your telescreen on again?)

Who are these anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-oil, pro-war Dems that Kos is supporting? I find this difficult to believe. As for being "pro-gun," whatever that means, I think you'll find that the vast majority of Dems support reasonable restrictions on guns, but that few, if any, actually support outlawing them. If you want to outlaw guns in America, I would advise against holding your breath, because it's never going to happen.

Kos is trying to put a Democratic majority in each house of Congress, along with a Dem in the White House in '08. In particular, he has been pushing what I think are anti-war veterans ("The Fighting Dems"). Are we now going to have a standardized test that a person must pass to become a party member? And then perhaps have Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Kos walk around giving speeches in those outfits that Mao used to wear?

There is a whiff of paranoia -- a Cold War mindset, if you will -- in your comment. Not good.

Who are these anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-oil, pro-war Dems that Kos is supporting? I find this difficult to believe.

Um.... just about all of the Senate Democrats on at least one of the above. (Criticising Bush on the war doesn't yet make you anti-war, getting outraged about fuel prices surely doesn't make you anti-oil, what about Reid.)

If you want to outlaw guns in America, I would advise against holding your breath, because it's never going to happen.

Do you think America is different from the rest of the world? If not, the above claim is defeatism or steady-state-ism.

Are we now going to have a standardized test that a person must pass to become a party member?

Methinks the idea was to be a group pushing the party in a progressive direction, and that doesn't go with a bianco check.

Um.... just about all of the Senate Democrats on at least one of the above. (Criticising Bush on the war doesn't yet make you anti-war, getting outraged about fuel prices surely doesn't make you anti-oil, what about Reid.)

Of course, but you can't expect forty five Senate Democrats to agree with the fully-progressive stance on every issue. They're people, not robots, and the Democrats have never exactly enjoyed a reputation for being well-organized. Slaboymni was making it sound as though all of Kos's picks were taking all, or most, of these stances. As to the war, there is little that the party can do without control of either Congress or the White House. The leading Dems, with the exception of Hillary, seem to be moving to the anti-war Left rapidly -- Gore, Dean (who was already anti-war), Clark (also anti-war from the beginning), Kerry, Feingold, etc. Those who haven't turned fully against the war are now taking the "It's Time for Iraqis to Put Up or Shut Up" stance, pushing for a deadline for withdrawal.

Give it some time. The picture will look much brighter if the Dems can put a few veterans in Congress, too.

Do you think America is different from the rest of the world? If not, the above claim is defeatism or steady-state-ism.

In general, people are people. But, if anything, the fight to ban guns has moved even more in favor of the pro-gun constituents. It's not steady-state-ism. It's a recognition that Americans, while supporting restrictions, are not going to give up their guns. Certain groups in America love to hunt. Others want to own a gun to keep in their homes for protection. It's not a battle that can be won, nor am I even in favor of a complete ban in America, even though I do not (and hopefully never will) own a gun.

It's too easy to say to the voters, "If we ban guns, the bad guys will still have them, while law-abiding citizens will be left unprotected."

The best way to fight gun crime is to put reforms in place that will take away inflated profits in the black market -- drugs being the classic example. Combine those sorts of reforms with background checks and waiting lists. That's a battle that I believe can be won over time, and it is a stance that I whole-heartedly support.

You can say my comment was nothing more than a defeatist one, but a complete ban is not a realistic objective.

I didn't know that you're not a lefty. I bet a lot of others didn't either.

What kind of others are you betting on, slaboymni? Those who really follow this blog know perfectly well -- because it has been said and discussed on numerous occasions -- that Jérôme considers himself left of centre but not very far so, hence not a "leftie". If you don't follow closely, you might have missed it.

But what's objectionable in your comment is the insinuation Jérôme has been deliberately playing hide-and-seek with everybody. And what I find frankly silly is the underlying assumption that him not being a "leftie" is some kind of big deal, like it disqualifies him from blogging or something.

Years ago, I read a book about philosophy of the North-American Indians.
I forgot title and author but one description I never forgot: when you put a stone in the middle of a circle everybody will have his own description of that (same)stone depending of the place he stands. North, South, West and East position wil deliver different descriptions of that same stone.
See stone as 'reality'or 'thruth', see people gathered in a circle as the ET community. If one concludes 'my point of view' is the only valuable one, then you have war.
When one hears others speak about the same 'stone' one can have the feeling of 'getting lost'(what the hell he is talking about).
ET gave me the impression of a gathering of people seeking for the real definitions of truth, reality and life, and there was always respect for opinions coming from somewhere else in the circle, which is as dvx stated, is quite unique in the blogosphere.

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

I read this site every day, I have written few comments, and never a diary.
The quantity and quality of your writings are impressive, and intimidating.
I am European. My nationality is of tertiary importance.
I am happy to have found people with whom I might not agree all the time, but who seem to share a core of pro-European, progressive ideals.
So, if you need to hear that you are great to continue what you are doing, here it is: You Are Great
This comment is in no way intended to be factitious, patronizing, or otherwise insincere or offensive.
I am not french but some of my friends are.

There are no "Super-humans" here; just others like you who find something worth their while.

I shall make an attempt. As soon as I figure out exactly what I would like to write about. Do not worry, I consider you not "Super-humans", but humans of an admirable kind. In general, I would like to find what one might term a European political engagement which does not derive from a national political base. National politics do not interest me, my desire for a more democratic union is quite personal, I would like to vote based on where I live, not on from whence I came.

Yeah, I even thought about you as I was formulating that--or as I thought over the notions over the previous week, that is.

Yes, you deny that they objectively exist, but you live in them nonetheless; and my point is that, if somehow they suddenly ceased to exist, you, I, and everyone else should find oursleves in a hell of a mess and the very first thing we'd discover is that we'd have to drop whatever else was occupying us--the laundry, nursing the baby, tilling the fields, etc. and turn urgent attention to the earth-shaking fact that the 'nation' had disappeared--for there'd unavoidably have to be something like it --fulfilling its role, if it were to disappear.

By the way, I might deny--and, who knows, it may be for the same or similar reasons that you deny that "nations" exist--for example that "Jews" "exist".

But, as soon as I did, one or many would indignantly demand to know, what, pray, tell, were they, if "Jews" did not exist? And all I could say is that they were people who thought of themselves as Jews, who believed they are Jews, whose mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, etc. far, far back into history, thought and claimed the same thing.

But, at some point, they can't "go back" any further, and we find some common ancestry which, _itself NEVER

presented itself as "Jewish", because the notion was unheard of.

Now, that's not quite the case with "nations". Go back as far as you like--even into pre-human species from which we homo sapiens sprang, and there, human and non-human, you're going to find animal societies living in groups which are self-aware and move and behave with what is tantamount to the precursors of tribes, which are the direct precursors to cities, and so on up to nations.

"Where are we? Here we come to find ourselves between our old nation that we do not want to leave and the new Europe which we hope to join in without knowing really how. From a representative government, there has tended to be substituted a "democratic-like governance" which neither governs nor represents us. We watch, emotionless, as our political existence unravels because we are prey to the illusion that a unified humanity which might cohere in dispensing with any and all political forms. And, for a long time now, we no longer know what to do about religion."

"How can we make sense of this crisis of our common existence? Pierre Manent scrutinizes the history, recent and long past, of the nation; the way in which it welcomed and nourished democracy; and how its disappearance menaces today this same democracy. He brings to light the paradoxal situation of religion the immanent end of which we are constantly proclaiming even as the splintering of religions frames to greater and greater extents our political landscape."

"Europe cannot remain very much longer in this depressionary zone where we are afraid of our own shaddows. This essay seeks to contribute to reanimating the spiritual and intellectual resources which give Europe its vital continuity."

I'm far from sure that I wholly subscribe to every particle of what is contained in the above description; but at the same time, I suspect that there is in it something which it is vitally important that we not fail to understand about the place and the role of nations as organizing structures of human life.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

Yes, you deny that they objectively exist, but you live in them nonetheless

No, objective nonexistence means I can't live in them, I just live among people who believe they exist :-) Upon checking I see I discussed my views on this subject months before your arrival (in my apatriot diaries and poemless's and others' what-is-Europe diaries, if you can be bored to dig up some overlong discussions :-) ). But I note that your point, especially given the apt collusion to religions, would be even enhanced if nations are only personal beliefs.

National politics are going to be hard to get completely away from for the next, say, eight or nine millennia.

Yes, of course. This opinion is quite personal, as stated. I have lived abroad for a decade, about a third of my life, almost my entire adult life. I find politics extremly important, but feel like Swedish politics are just completely beside the point for me now. On the other hand, the larger scale European scene seems far more relevant, but much harder to approach since European politics are organized on a national to European basis. Eurotrib is a promising forum for an inversion of this political organization. European policies first, then a translation into specific national considerations, or some such thing.

I like your inner ear analogy. I was snowboarding once this winter, in extremely dense fog, visibility less than a meter. I was stopped, trying to figure out where to go next, when suddenly the ground hit my head and I was sliding along it quite rapidly, as if I had been going quite fast... I guess my inner ear is not up to spec.

"I am not a lefty. Europe is more important to me than the left. I am French."

Tribalism is more important than, say, principles? That's nuts. Would a Europe run by the likes of Le Pen or Berlusconi be a better than a bunch of squabbling countries run by the likes of Prodi or Zapatero? I can't think so.

In my most humble of opinions, I would say that it's the notion of Europe that is important to Jérôme. What is being built, what can be built, what it bodes for the rest of the world, what the rest of the world bodes for it.

We all know Sierra Leone is closer to Lisbon than Helsinki is, so it's definitely not a geographic thing. Can't be tribal either as those bloody portuguese don't even speak the same language as us (damn you, Torres!). And they eat raw sardines, can you believe that?

This message was brought to you by the Association of Therapeutic Debating.

The "Europe" he speaks about is anti-tribalism, not tribalism. Instead of Merkels and Le Pens vs. Berlusconis and vs. Zapateros and vs. everyone else (and some powerful outsiders enjoying some divide-and-rule policies), all bound into a peaceful system for a greater benefit. Also, one may have other principles than leftist ones (centrist, Euro-liberal and EU-integrationist ones in Jérôme's case).

Why don't you all go to hell you cock-sucking motherfucking pieces of shit fuckers who think they fucking know every fucking fuck about the fuck of the fuck and fuck what with the fuck fuck fuck.

Oops, I posted to the wrong website! My comment above was meant for fuckrussia.com. Or damn, was it fuckfrance.com? Awww, can't remember now, and the fact that my comment above can be used for both websites doesn't really help.

This message was brought to you by the Association of Therapeutic Debating.

I am not European, but I do like this site very much. It is one of the more literate and informed places on the Web, and Jerome a Paris is a level-headed and intelligent commentator. So are the other regular writers. Most important, also, are the lack of personal attacks, and the profusion of intelligent comment.

Keep up the good work. Someday even I might have something cogent to add to a discussion.

Sven, Interpol has just pushed you down a notch to make room for proximity1 in the punctuation offender section ;))

(ps: I'm not sure how many people know the story behind the references people keep making to punctuation when around Sven? do you proximity1? Sven once taught us the word "pikkunussiya" -boy am I going to get it for that spelling- which in Finnish means "having carnal relations with commas", and is the equivalent of the French "sodomizing flies" and close to the English "splitting hairs")

" I'm not sure how many people know the story behind the references people keep making to punctuation when around Sven? do you proximity1?"

It depends. If you're going to (a.) tell me the story about the punctuation if I answer "no", or, if you're going to (b.) tell me that you've already just told me the story about the punctuation if I answer "no", then my answer is "yes".

On the other hand, if you promise not to tell me either (a.) or (b.) above if I answer honestly, then my answer is "no, I don't know the story."

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

The Finnish word I can't spell, but which means "comma-fucking", gives rise to the initials PN and the Order of the same. To the rank of Knight Commander of which Order I hereby propose your promotion, proximity1.

(I suppose you'll tell me there's something wrong with "Alex and me", in which case the Grand Vizir of the Order, Sventus Triloqvistus Magnus, will have to take an unprecedented decision on your rapid promotion to a yet higher rank.)

So the musical 'The King and I" will have to be renamed? Along with Jul Brinner? But I digress.

Me duck, the PN system is entirely self-organizing. You take the rank that becomes you. Other members of the Order (Though it could be better described as Chaos) will quickly point it if they feel you have risen above your station. Which takes us back to train-blogging.

I've said enough already. Our rites must remain veiled, as must our women.

Just curious-- some Britons, you know, people in England, Wales or Scotland-- don't consider themselves "European"; never really understood that, myself; but, I wonder, are you one of the afore-mentioned?

You needn't reply if you prefer not to. You have the right to remain silent; but, contributing is the whole idea of this place.

For a "non" European (unless you're Ameri---nope, that, too!) for a non-"European", your English is very good--like it's your mother tongue.

Yours, semi-level-headed and occasionally intelligent,

Prox.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

"Europe" --as a democratic region--is more important to moi, aussi, than the "Left" with which I identify myself.

If ever supporting the democratic development of Europe put me at odds with "the Left", I know exactly where my sympathies would require me to go.

Democracy and its institutions and principles, first---before my "party", before my old school ties, before my economic or other selfish interests--democracy first. The rest comes along only as it can be fitted into the picture without harming the democratic commonwealth.

Oh yeah, I'm an Anglo-American but in real life, I live in France--where in theory it's "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" and in practice it's "La France, aime-la ou bien quitte-la!" (France, love it or leave it!")

I luv's ya, Baby! Even if ya's not pahr-fect!

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

You could lose a hell of a lot more and still have more than the vast majority of folks. And you know it.

I feel somewhat responsible for this even though I know I'm not, but I am nevertheless afraid to even open up my own diary for fear of what I might find there...

You've done a remarkable job of "welcom[ing] different view points and mak[ing] them visible, while still being critical of them." So far as whether you are lefty or not ... I'm not even sure what that means, but last time I checked our political compass, no one was lurking up in the top righthand corner... Anyway, that shouldn't even matter. You don't have to qualify your statements like that. You've done nothing to apologize for, so far as I know (like I said, I'm afraid to look.)

But you know, sometimes it's best to let things go, too. Walk away and come back when cooler heads are prevailing. Keep in mind that people are inclined to post something on a blog that they'd never in a hundred years say to someone's face. Good for you for reminding us there is a human being on the other side of that connection.

Plus, you have a lot on your platter at the moment. You've just organized an international Meetup, now you're off to Yearly Kos to tell a lot of people exactly what they don't want to hear even though they know you are right. You have a demading job, a family, a son who needs you a hell of a lot more than some dilletante kremlinoligists, and you know, in the greater scheme of things, I just think you should give yourself more credit, and maybe a some more breaks.

Everyone else: Look, I don't like having to choose between writing about Russia and worrying about who is going to get offended by what gets written in the threads. I try to keep it light for a reason and will be the first to admit I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but I talk about it because I think it is important, despite all the silliness I throw into the mix. But over and over these little clashes happen, and often seem to happen for the sake of the clash itself, rather than as the result of an attempt to reach some mutual understanding. I'm not going to stand up and say no one better better upset Jerome, and I'm not going to say the same about anyone else. Defend your own honor, the lot of ya. But please, for the love of god, keep in mind the effort that many of us have put into creating a community with a high standard of debate and certain expectations of mutual respect.

In the end we are all here to learn as well as inform, so I think a little more humility might go a long way.

And how about some appreciation for the person who's made this blog possible in the first place, please.

</end of rant&gt

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

"In the end we are all here to learn as well as inform, so I think a little more humility might go a long way."

No argument from me on any of that. As we're here to learn, let's not lose sight of the fact that without some dissention, some disagreement, some challenges and defenses, without some criticisms and some exchanges of views honestly held and felt, we can not only forget about this place existing as a venue of open debate, we can also forget about learning anything from each other.

The learning implies the dissent, the listening to those who disagree with us, the granting and the accepting of common respect for differing views, and it implies the steady recognition that all of us have at best only partial hold on facts and truths, that we are all in some part mistaken in what we feel very certain must be true.

It would help us, then, also, to keep these things in mind and try to resist the very tempting goal of a self-imposed and rather artificial harmony of views.

Or, well, I misjudged us and the notion that I belong here; though both of those I so far still do not believe to be true.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

I know from experience that letting it go, and accepting not be the the focus of overall admiration, is a path to wisdom. At least, humility is. What I've learnt from ET is humility. I know, Jerome, that being criticised is all the more painful as you one is accustomed to praise. But without criticism, praise is taken for granted and losses its value. And there will always be someone more brilliant, better informed, more knowledgeable. Do not seek others' recognition as a condition to you self-esteem. it comes from your inner self, not the reflection you trigger in the eyes admiring you.

First and foremost by wonderful diary about Densha Otoko has disappear...my important opinions about the Spanish state of the union address gone...

Only my friends stood by me and support me even when nobody understood what I write (like this comment???)

And now.. gee.. another diary I just do not understand... follow the link..follow the link.. (what a great song by the way..or wsit the leader?).

I am gonna keep following the link....and it seems that there has been a...."missunderstanding" (a word that just today a fellow american told me has very bad connotation that I was not aware of...I should haven't said that to the waitress... I do not know if I would ever be able to get her number..gee)..

Sorry I digress....what was all this diary about again?

People have different opinons cheked
They get excited sometimes about the opinons cheked
You can not see the others tone or facial expression Checked

You do not really know how the other is feeling checked
Three comments go by and out of the blue you have no clue what is going on. checked..

And you end you with...-So is this just different strong opinions..or is it some kind of "forgive me" diary or is this some kind of "I would like people to support me" diary...or "I would like it not happen toagain" diary or "why can't we be friend" (beatifullllll song) diary....

Ok.. I am leaving ... gee...mumbing..mumbling... I leave them hardly two days alone and all I got is this lousy t-shirt..gee I really can not leave this place...you can not leave them alone even one day...they need me :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact.
Levi-Strauss, Claude

I have to say that I am baffled by this discussion. That Jerome is open and has fostered a great online community almost needs no defending; it is obvious. To make this even more tangible: I like ET (and not dKos) because we can disagree, intelligently.

For the love of cheese, I am Iranian, read news in Persian, and when I say something about Iran, people disagree with me on ET, quite a bit. That is great! That's healthy.

All it takes is browsing other sites to know that. I see the performative need for this thread, i.e, the show of support for Jerome and the site, but there is no philosophical need for it.

Where there is an interesting philosophical discussion to have is what "left" means. I can tell you, and you all probably know this, in political philosophy there is no consensus regarding what a leftist is anymore.

What I liked about ET is that it calls itself a "progressive community." What that means is to be defined but that is the good news. We're in exciting times - not cold war anymore. It is exciting (and frightening) because these basic concepts are shifting and they cannot be defined a priori, the way people did even fifty years ago.

It is no longer defined by one single issue, be it an economic agenda, or a geographic boundary. All discussions of nationalism per se fail. I can certify to that as a political refugee. Not being progressive, perhaps being conservative, is for those who are seeking clearly defined foundations. (In contemporary philosophy, we say that most leftists are anti-foudnationalist.)

Any definition of progressive/left is to be achieved; it is a platform to be defined, given the lack of perfect foundations, and it will take a while before that can be done. Here at ET, we give it a shot, which is better than other sites.

Reminds me of that born-again bumper sticker--"I found it"--and its variations. I lost it. I stepped in it. I left it on the subway. And so on.

I have known Misunderstood Maximum Lider (MML) on the net for more than 3 years now, and will freely testify before the appropriate magistrate that he wouldn't know it if he stepped in it. Probably the result of a debauched Frog life: chasing too little escargot with too much absinthe, over an extended period.

Seriously,Jerome and others have created a very nice site here. I congratulate you folks on it.

If people don't understand how affectionate this is, then they have no soul or no education. Dear Leader - borrowed from North Korean mythology - is about as ironic as you can get while still lickin ass ;-).

ET is, as far as I know, a living breathing self-organizing system, the epitome of leaderlessness.

It is true that someone pays for it. It is true that the gnomes obviously communicate among themselves to ensure that ET is well administered. But that is done for altruistic reasons.

Very diplomatically I must disagree with you when you write ET is the epitome of leaderlessness. Quite the contrary.
This does not diminish the merits of this community, and jerome's merit to keep it alive.
Everyone gets moments of doubt. Jerome himself once advised me to stop whining on ET, as that is a tip jar in disguise.

Jerome, for all your knowledge about oil&gas, wind farms, Russia and economy, the above is one of the best things I have read from you so far. Because it's not the technocrat, the economist, the banker or the ET-leader speaking, but someone who writes from the heart. You know I don't praise easily, but this time you deserve it : very well done.